Rand Paul, surely?

another thing, the surrender of chemical weapons is of course not the "real" goal of the west, it was a excuse to attack only. Now we are backed into a corner having to comply with this wmd ruse. Assad will continue to attack his people without a care, the US and western powers will be forced to sit back and watch. So Rickyp's comment is of course a bit of a laugh and he is already attempting to spin this into a win for Obama, even if the chemical weapons are taken way, it's still an epic failure, no doubt about it!

On the front page of today's WSJ, there are reports that Syria is now dispersing their chemical weapons throughout the country so that tracking them will be much more difficult. It's becoming challenging to see how the U.S. can enforce any agreement.

It seems to me that any attack by the US would be worse and worse an idea. An attack would do nothing towards the supposed "real" reason to attack ...getting rid of chemical weapons. An attack right now would be limited to damaging the Syrian airforce, damaging runways, hitting hangars, etc. Maybe taking out a few tanks as well.

What does this accomplish?
The rebels will be emboldened to fight more and without air and tank support, the government forces are hampered but they STILL have superior firepower, the whole thing spirals into a messier situation, and the chemical weapons, now Assad has more reason to use them. More chemical attacks = more US involvement, more US attacks could equal greater Russian and Iranian involvement, the civil war could spin out of control into a full blown world war. While I do not expect it to ratchet up THAT far, I do expect the war to get bloodier and last longer. Is that our goal?

Ray Jay wrote:On the front page of today's WSJ, there are reports that Syria is now dispersing their chemical weapons throughout the country so that tracking them will be much more difficult. It's becoming challenging to see how the U.S. can enforce any agreement.

We won't be able to.

Furthermore, as I understand it, Russia has been the supplier of the chemical weapons (or at least the precursor chemicals). So, we're going to put this under Russia's supervision? UN inspectors are not going into a war zone.

Ultimately, the President is going to have to face this reality: there is no way to stop Assad from using chemical weapons without a major intervention. That may not mean "boots on the ground," but it will demand a great deal more than a few days of cruise missiles.

As Joe Klein wrote, the President has weakened the US internationally and his office domestically.

Also in the news in the last couple of days:

The respected Russian daily Kommersant reported Wednesday that the Kremlin has decided to go ahead with the sale of a package of its advanced S-300 antiaircraft missile system to Iran, reversing a decision made three years ago by then-President Dmitry Medvedev. The Kremlin issued a terse denial, saying that Mr. Putin did not give orders to prepare a new S-300 deal with Iran.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2013/091 ... s-question

GMTom wrote:It seems to me that any attack by the US would be worse and worse an idea. An attack would do nothing towards the supposed "real" reason to attack ...getting rid of chemical weapons. An attack right now would be limited to damaging the Syrian airforce, damaging runways, hitting hangars, etc. Maybe taking out a few tanks as well.

What does this accomplish?
The rebels will be emboldened to fight more and without air and tank support, the government forces are hampered but they STILL have superior firepower, the whole thing spirals into a messier situation, and the chemical weapons, now Assad has more reason to use them. More chemical attacks = more US involvement, more US attacks could equal greater Russian and Iranian involvement, the civil war could spin out of control into a full blown world war. While I do not expect it to ratchet up THAT far, I do expect the war to get bloodier and last longer. Is that our goal?

Tom, either way the war gets bloodier and lasts longer. There are over 100,000 dead; 2 million external refugees, and over 4 million total refugees. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan are all being destabilized. The governments of the latter two may collapse over this. Syria is ruled by a minority; how many are you prepared to watch die? The country's total population was 22 million so there is a ways to go on the death toll and refugee numbers. Either way it will be bloody for years. There are no good outcomes. They both suck. When comparing two bad outcomes it isn't sufficient to look at the negative of just one outcome.

Meanwhile, both Russia and Iran are emboldened to accelerate Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Israeli press is talking about going it alone vis-à-vis Iran.

Ray Jay wrote:

GMTom wrote:It seems to me that any attack by the US would be worse and worse an idea. An attack would do nothing towards the supposed "real" reason to attack ...getting rid of chemical weapons. An attack right now would be limited to damaging the Syrian airforce, damaging runways, hitting hangars, etc. Maybe taking out a few tanks as well.

What does this accomplish?
The rebels will be emboldened to fight more and without air and tank support, the government forces are hampered but they STILL have superior firepower, the whole thing spirals into a messier situation, and the chemical weapons, now Assad has more reason to use them. More chemical attacks = more US involvement, more US attacks could equal greater Russian and Iranian involvement, the civil war could spin out of control into a full blown world war. While I do not expect it to ratchet up THAT far, I do expect the war to get bloodier and last longer. Is that our goal?

Tom, either way the war gets bloodier and lasts longer. There are over 100,000 dead; 2 million external refugees, and over 4 million total refugees. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan are all being destabilized. The governments of the latter two may collapse over this. Syria is ruled by a minority; how many are you prepared to watch die? The country's total population was 22 million so there is a ways to go on the death toll and refugee numbers. Either way it will be bloody for years. There are no good outcomes. They both suck. When comparing two bad outcomes it isn't sufficient to look at the negative of just one outcome.

Meanwhile, both Russia and Iran are emboldened to accelerate Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Israeli press is talking about going it alone vis-à-vis Iran.

And, if Turkey was willing to intervene, I would support helping them--their troops. What I reject is the current policy of spanking Assad, but going it alone. Why? Because if the situation drags on, we will have the Powell Doctrine implicitly imposed on us. We "broke" it (even though we didn't) and therefore we must "fix" it (even though we can't).

If Jordan goes down, that would be terrible. However, getting involved in Syria may or may not save the King.

It is a difficult situation, one that calls for a leader of Thatcher or even Bush stature. We don't have that and I don't want to go to (another) war with the leader we have. There is a resoluteness missing. There is an ability to rally other nations that is missing. Finally, there is a vision missing.

yeah, it's hard to argue with that. Obama is a very smart guy in many ways, but this does seem to be beyond his capabilities no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.

At best intervening now is too little too late.

Help the refugees ..great idea!
Help support Jordan ..great idea!
But getting into a situation that has no clear goals, has no clear strategy, has no clear winner, no clear "side" to pick, this is just stupid!

Danvion

Rand Paul, surely?

only on this topic...but he's definitely scored points in my world for his thoughtful position

Q: As an alternative to missile strikes, Russia has proposed a plan to have Syria place all of its chemical weapons under control of the United Nations, which would then destroy them. Do you support or oppose this plan?

79 % of respondents supported this. 16 % opposed.
(71% of republicans)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010 ... se_261.xml

What conclusion can be drawn?
There were no particularly attractive answers to "what to do in Syria". And yet the goal of limiting the use of Chemical weapons appears to be attained. (Syria using them now is highly improbable,.)
And for those who think Russia isn't interested in securing the weapons... please remember that Russia has been a victim of the use of poison gas by terrorists. Chechnyan fighters used gas at the Moscow theatre killing 130. They have every reason to be concerned about Sarin falling into the hands of Islamic extremists ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_the ... age_crisis

Rickyp,

If you're correct, and the Russians do what they say they will do as far as obtaining Assad's chemical weapons, I will buy you lunch.

Why?

Because I know you're out to lunch on this.

We got played. But as I've stated before, I'm glad we did. Better we lose face to the Russians than look forward to more suffering, hatred and death.

I'm serious about the bet by the way. I would be happy to lose.

and what does your post mean Ricky?
Few would oppose getting rid of chemical weapons from ANY nation, the problem here is the disposal of them in Syria is not / was not the real goal, to suggest it ever was is kidding nobody. We are now forced into this 'solution" as being the end game answer, it backs the west into a corner with their hand tied.

And Russia wants them disposed of more than most? Gee, seeing as how they were supplied by Russia in the first place doesn't really support your position does it?

The investigators were unable to examine all of the munitions used, but they were able to find and measure several rockets or their components. Using standard field techniques for ordnance identification and crater analysis, they established that at least two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified provenance.

So what exactly are you trying to tell us?

tom

Gee, seeing as how they were supplied by Russia in the first place doesn't really support your position does it?

Russia, Iran and North Korea are fingered as having taught the Syrians how to make the weapons, over two decades ago . . But the responsibility for continuing to supply the raw materials is broad.

While Syria has possessed the technology to manufacture chemical weapons for decades, it does not make all the chemicals needed to produce weapons like the sarin nerve agent used recently outside Damascus. This means another source is selling Syria the needed precursor chemicals for its weapons production.
Though many point to Russia and North Korea as potential suppliers, we now know that the source is a variety of different actors — including private manufacturers in the United States and around the globe. For example, the United Kingdom authorized the export of precursor chemicals to a known Syrian front company, which raises questions about legitimate firms’ willingness to sell dangerous dual-use chemicals to a country with a chemical-weapons program in the middle of a civil war.Reports reveal that one British company tried to sell precursors to sarin — sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride — to a Syrian firm as recently as January 2012. From 2004 to 2010, two British firms exported sodium fluoride to a cosmetics company in Syria, which likely supplied Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons program.
These sales, and others like it, have allowed Assad to amass what some believe to be the world’s third-largest stockpile of chemical weapons, after Russia and the United States. Syria accumulated the production technology in the 1980s from the Soviet Union and also chemical brokerage companies across Europe.

tom

Few would oppose getting rid of chemical weapons from ANY nation, the problem here is the disposal of them in Syria is not / was not the real goal, to suggest it ever was is kidding nobody

Obama

My entire goal throughout this exercise is to make sure what happened on Aug. 21 does not happen again,” the president told Stephanopoulos of the large-scale chemical weapons attack outside Damascus that he said killed more than 1,400 civilians.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... le-points/

You have a quotation elsewhere that says differently? How the chemical weapons are dispossed of really doesn't matter to the expressed goal does it? And bombing wouldn't have destroyed the weapons, only provided an incentive to not use them again... (avoiding death is usually a compelling motivation)

Tom

and what does your post mean Ricky?

The poll shows that Americans are vastly supportive of the deal with the Russians and Syrians.
You should interpret that to mean that as success for the President with the voting public. I suppose this is soull destroying to those with ODS.
(You might also see in the poll that he is still trusted more than the republican congress on a wide variety of issues, including what to do in Syria. From this you should take away the realization that criticizing isn't the same as offering options that are preferred by the majority)
It is possible that Dags cynacism will be proved correct .... but not for quite some time, Probably a year or more. I'm afraid Subway might rise the price of subs from $5 by then. (Unless Assad is foolish enough to use the weapons again, in which case a bi-ilateral action by the US and France would have wider support... )

Neither Russia nor the US want the Al Queda and other Islamic terorrists to win. Both for the same reasons. In Russia's case because they create security problems in Russian territory that is majority Muslim .....
So there is a confluence of interests ...

In the meantime, the goal of taking them away from Assad as an immediate option is accomplished and accomplished without having to take direct military action....
The Syrian conflict will go on. With a much greater support from within the US politicial world (as oppossed to the general public reflected in the poll above) for arming elements of the Syrian opposition to balance Al Quesda and the Islamists... That support wasn't there before this "crisis" either. So I suppose Obama has advanced the cause there too - although i suspect some of the reticence for arming the Syrians was from Obama his self.... And, lets face it, probably justified . Its not like the CIA has done a great job at identifying parties who will accept arms, and then continue to staunch be allies going forward .... (I'm thinking of Joe Wilsons war here...)